Chris Lombardi puts defense and security under the spotlight, as he shares his takes on recent NATO and EU cooperation and provides insight into the company’s own long-term strategic partnerships in Europe.

Three trends are currently driving the global electricity sector: decarbonization, decentralization and differentiation. Utilities are making significant contributions to mitigate carbon emissions, while a technology revolution is …

The trouble began earlier this month, when a draft Council of Ministers resolution reviewing this aspect of the wider ‘Cardiff process’ – begun in 1998 to integrate environmental and sustainable development issues into other EU policy areas – was presented to a working group jointly chaired by the directorates general for transport and environment.

This paper has obtained a copy of the document, containing virtually entire passages that have been crossed out, including one section expressing an invitation to the Commission to develop EU environmental targets for the transport sector.

Instead, there is only a watered down request for the Commission to “examine the possible use” of such indicators, which many governments and NGOs would like to see put in place.

The official line is that most of the changes were made by the Council’s secretariat on the advice of its legal service.

But some sources have suggested they were made under pressure from the Commission’s transport directorate in an attempt to stall the Cardiff integration process in the transport sector.

Either way, the changes could endanger the entire Cardiff process, because the massive transport sector could slow down its progress in other policy areas.

According to reports, these allegations come at an embarrassing time for the Commission, as the working group meeting took place just before a major conference held on 10-11 October on good practice in integration of environment into transport policy, hosted by DG Environment.

Whether or not the amendments are the handiwork of Commission officials or of the Council legal service, most members of the working group were certainly not expecting such far-reaching changes.

“The group was definitely taken by surprise,” said one Swedish official who was present at the 8 October meeting, composed largely of attachés to EU transport ministers and transport policy experts.

“The Swedish position is that we still hope it will be possible to reach an agreement on this one way or another to show that the process is still alive,” he said. “That’s a question for the Danish presidency – we don’t know yet how they will act.”

The next review of the Cardiff process is due under the Danish presidency, which is now under pressure to salvage the Council document before the EU transport ministers next meet in early December.

A Dutch official, who will attend a transport policy expert group meeting tomorrow (25 October), said he was also very surprised to hear about the amendments to the draft resolution.

“Hopefully we will all know more on Friday,” he said, adding that he’d heard the Danish presidency may want to scrap the document in favour of drafting a new one.

Officials at both the Commission and the Danish presidency could not be reached for comment.

According to reports, some members of the 8 October working group meeting were particularly irked by the removal of wording in which the Council itself had pledged specific action.

As the resolution is a political statement, this simply could not be justified because of legal concerns, they said.

So they were puzzled that a passage suggesting that the Council should focus on three areas “where there is the most urgent need for action” has been struck out. These are greenhouse gas emissions, emissions of harmful substances from all transport modes and noise.

In addition, the Swedish official said he was particularly disappointed about another passage that had been crossed out suggesting the Commission undertake a “strategic environmental assessment” of the

Trans-European Networks, or TENs, introduced in the 1980s to promote cross-border infrastructure development in the transport sector.

The document is a second review of the Council strategy on the integration of environment and sustainable development into transport policy.

A first review, based on a 1999 strategy paper, was conducted under the Swedish EU presidency during the first half of 2001, and adopted without any major qualms from the Council’s legal service.

“That document was very similar to this one,” the Swedish official said, adding that it was thus “very strange” the second review document had been so heavily edited.

If the Commission’s transport directorate is behind the changes, it could be because “they feel the environment people are interfering in their responsibilities,” he said, referring to the environment directorate.

“It’s a means for the Council to put some pressure on the Commission,” he added.

“A lot of that was deleted in the new draft handed out during the working group meeting.”

Moreover, he said, this is not based on a Commission initiative, but stems from the Council.

The Cardiff process was launched in June 1998, when the European Council in Cardiff invited the transport, energy and agriculture Councils to develop strategies to promote environmental integration and sustainable development within their respective policy areas.

“Maybe that’s part of the problem, maybe the Commission really wants to mark its territory,” he said.

“It could be part of the struggle between the Council and Commission, highlighted right now by the future of Europe debate.”